under an optional protocol of that nature and should thus be explicitly included as inadmissibility criteria. 27. While some delegations proposed the inclusion of an admissibility criterion covering the non-retroactive applicability of the optional protocol, other delegations argued that, by definition, international treaties were non-retroactive and the inclusion of such a criterion was unnecessary. A number of delegations pointed out that violations that continued after the entry into force of the optional protocol were not affected by the principle of non-retroactivity. 28. The Working Group agreed ad referendum to include a criterion covering inadmissibility for reasons of duplication of procedures. In that regard, some delegations considered that only a simultaneous examination by a procedure of international investigation or settlement should be precluded, whereas others argued that both the simultaneous and a subsequent examination of the matter should be precluded. The point was made that since the adoption of the first optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which precluded simultaneous examination only, other similar procedures had entered into force, thus justifying the exclusion of both a simultaneous and a subsequent examination of the same matter. Some delegations argued that communications could be brought which might fall within the competence of different treaty bodies or where gender issues were only one aspect of a communication. In that regard, the role of the Secretariat in registering and channelling communications to treaty bodies was noted. 29. The point was made that consideration of a communication by any other international procedure should be precluded from the moment such a communication had been taken note of by an international procedure. Some delegations emphasized the need for coordination among international human rights mechanisms. 30. The Working Group agreed that it would be inappropriate to provide the Committee with the competence to determine that another procedure of international investigation or settlement was unduly prolonged. Some delegations suggested that a reference to the Committee’s own prior consideration of the same, or of substantially the same, matter should be included as a ground of inadmissibility. Others suggested that that would be unnecessary since such cases would be covered under the abuse of the right to submit a communication. 31. Some delegations suggested that the principles of objectivity and impartiality, which were widely accepted in the field of human rights, should be included as a criterion of admissibility. Other delegations noted that they could not agree to the inclusion of an admissibility criterion addressing principles of objectivity and impartiality. Article 5 32. Many delegations were in favour of the explicit inclusion of a provision relating to interim measures in the optional protocol since such a provision was in accordance with the current practice of similar international procedures. They considered that its inclusion in the optional protocol would constitute a progressive codification of international human rights law and would add to the transparency of the procedure. Some delegations recalled that interim measures were addressed in the rules of procedure of other international procedures and -100-